The reason why I woke up one morning and started contemplating Connectivity-in-a-Box over Development-in-a-Box is because Steve and I are getting a lot of handler advice on taking the concept to the higher levels of public/government/corporate awareness, and, quite naturally, a lot of that advice is coming from the world of official developmental aid (aka, the foreign aid crowd). Even more naturally, the bureaucratic tendency of such advice is to offer all sorts of softening and inclusive language, designed to make everyone feel part of the solution and dampen any implied insult by DiB's enunciation--as in, the vast majority of foreign aid is broken and wasted, so let's fix it!

Frankly, when I read the material softened in this way, a creepy feeling wells up in my gut. Do enough of this to "gain acceptance" by the establishment and pretty soon you have something that's so inoffensive and so vacuous and so marginal that any "victory" in gaining said acceptance is basically worthless.

Why? By making the concept more acceptable and less threatening you've basically given all the established players enough coverage of their equities (preferred way of doing business) that you've opened the door for them to say, "we already essentially do that" or "we've got that capability already in house" (typically in some lesser-included formulation where it is assumed that existing capabilities and procedures can handle the scenario/goal you raise) and you close the door on any substantive change.

Strategic concepts need to be bold, clarifying calls to action. How they get translated to projects and products is another matter. Strategic visioneering isn't about the means, but the ends. Development-in-a-Box is insanely ambitious by past standards, but why speak to that past? Why not speak boldly and clearly to the future worth creating? Why not appeal to the next generation instead of the powers that be--right now.

Frankly, I like the image of "young man, narrowly read" (the title of my favorite Amazon review where I got 4 stars for my ideas but a stern dressing down for not spending more time cross-referencing the ideas of other authors, instead relying so heavily on newspaper articles--the shame!), because the vast majority of what gets published in my universe of national and international security is such hide-bound pablum that I can't even finish the summary op-ed, much less the weighty tome standing behind it. I read that "widely," I'd never say anything original. Indeed, this is why I read almost exclusively outside my field.

And I like the results, and judging by the speaking fees, so do other people, both inside and outside the system.

When I spoke at the DC chapter of the Society for International Development about DiB, almost every speaker after me made a point of disclaiming its viability, to the approving nods of grey beards throughout the audience.

And yet I signed a slew of programs for all these twentysomethings who rushed me after my presentation (even having my picture taken with several).

So which side do you appeal to as grand strategist in a Long War? Why, it's obvious. You go with the Long Tail in the Long War--i.e., not where the power is concentrated or bunched up now You wage your struggle as outsider to the system.

And frankly, I've found much more success as the outsider than the insider, and I've found that success in both the outside (DiB is an easy sell outside of the DC/gov world) and on the inside (DiB seems to get Steve and I the partners we really need).

It's not hubris to be so audacious, so long as you run with those who get it and don't bog yourself (or your enunciation) with those who want to nibble you to death or those who will--quite frankly--never get it

Make your breakthroughs and exploit the chaos.

In the end, there will never be one Development-in-a-Box thing or product or contract or project. There will be a host of things and products and projects and contracts that explore the dynamics and mechanisms and procedures and goals implied.

So why not keep the main strategic concept bold? Audacious? Breathtaking? Even confrontational and slightly insulting?

If you're in the business of creating and promoting new rules, why not be all those things?

In the end, Connectivity-in-a-Box just isn't far enough out there. It's basically already here in cellphones (he types, blogging away from his Treo, now using his Mac basically only for PPT) and WiFi. I say, let's piss people off. Let's challenge them to dream of that future worth creating. The stronger the resistance, the better the conversation--and the better our enunciation becomes.

I wrote in BFA that the grand strategist wants to be exactly at that point where people say, "I like your logic, but it'll never happen." You want people right on the edge of plausibility. That's where you want to be operating.

DiB keeps us on that edge, whereas CiB does not.

So here endeth the rebranding proposal.